concurring specially:
This case was before the Court initially after it had been first decided by the Court of Appeals, 109 Idaho 61, 704 P.2d 965 (Ct.App.1985). On a petition for rehearing, which was denied, I concluded that this Court should not have interfered with the Court of Appeals decision on the sentencing issue, Part II B, beginning at p. 67 of 109 Idaho, 704 P.2d at p. 971. Quickly reviewed again it shows that the defendants had no prior felonies, the influence of alcohol weighed heavily,1 and the sentence imposed was far more extreme than the severe penalty recommended by the prosecutor. “The record makes it clear that he [the district judge] did so largely out of a personal sense of revulsion against the crimes committed.” The district judge forthrightly stated that in his view the death penalty was appropriate. 109 Idaho at 68, 704 P.2d at 972.
My opinion on denial of rehearing concluded that civilized persons would not disagree with that view, and went on to note that this Court’s June 1986 opinion observed that the sentencing judge had ascribed no real consideration to the possibility of rehabilitation. All at the same time *538the opinion, in setting forth the objectives of criminal punishment included “(3) the possibility of rehabilitation,” 111 Idaho at 284, 723 P.2d at 828, and then completely avoided the issue of excessivity of the sentences:
Upon review of the record, we are inclined to the view that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. In view of the particular difficulties in weighing the countervailing considerations in the instant case, we affirm the decision of the trial court and, if an I.C.R. 35 proceeding is initiated, the trial court may reexamine its sentence pursuant thereto.
Under the Rule 35 proceedings, we invite the trial court to fully examine each of the considerations set forth in the majority and dissenting opinions of the Court of Appeals, and to provide full consideration and findings relative to the four primary sentencing criteria outlined in Wolfe, supra. State v. Martinez, 111 Idaho at 284, 723 P.2d at 828 (footnote omitted) (Emphasis added here).
This did not go unnoticed in my opinion on denial of the petition for rehearing. “In a classic anomaly, our June 1986 opinion affirms the sentences imposed, but at the same time instructs the trial judge to consider the Wolfe case, and then re-examine its sentences in light thereof.”
Our opinion today now makes it crystal clear that criminal conduct short of murder does not in all instances require consideration of rehabilitation — which is likely a sign of the times.
Having previously sympathized with the views the trial judge entertained as to this particular case, and accepting, albeit reluctantly, the philosophy that sentencing judges may weigh out any consideration whatever of any rehabilitation, be it after 10, 20, 30, or 40 years of close confinement, I write only to document the stage which was set by our 1986 opinion and the result which foreseeably flowed therefrom. Under the decision of the Court of Appeals, the defendants would have been confined for at least 30 years — more than one-half of an adult lifetime — and at the end of that time could apply for parole if the parole board found that 30 years in the penitentiary had made them viable candidates for rehabilitation. Proceedings under Rule 35, coming directly on the heels of the convictions, being a “plea for leniency,” could not have been expected to have any chance for success. The Court of Appeals recognized that it would be too soon. This Court did not.
. See for example State v. Osborn, 102 Idaho 405, 631 P.2d 187 (1981), where the Supreme Court ruled that ingestion of drugs and alcohol, 102 Idaho at 408, 631 P.2d 187, 190, resulting in impaired capacity to appreciate criminality of conduct, could be a mitigating circumstance. That holding has never been overruled.